Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
25 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
case where saving life or limb justifies the risk taken
|
watt v herts cc '954
|
measure of a light bulb emittion
|
|
|
case where fire authority was liable for damage caused by passing through red light, cuz the risk was considered too great to justify the possibility of causing danger
|
Ward v London '938
|
a room in hospital v city I lived in
|
|
|
Furnace lietuviskai
|
katiline
|
fire
|
|
|
wharf lietuviskai
|
prieplauka
|
harbourside
|
|
|
case where D was liable for damage, due to the easines of preventing the damage and the seriousness of harm caused
|
Wagon Mound No.2 '967
|
ship leaking furnace oil in a wharf, welding sparks igniting the embroiled cotton debris in oil, setting everything alight and destroying, due to failure to close a valve
|
|
|
case where prison authoroties weren't negligent for failing to provide enough staff for prisoners with psychiatric illnesses. as it would be done outside prisons in psych hospitals. though marked that lack of funds would not be an excuse in different settings to excuse public. authorities for lack of maintance due to impecuniosity.
|
Knight v Home Office
|
a warrior v HO
|
|
|
case where the risk of workers slipping on the oily floor wasn't so great as to close down the factory and experience great financial loss
|
Latimer v AEC Limited
|
L****** v *** L**
|
|
|
s 1 of Compensation act
|
court should consider if taking precautionary steps to meet the required standard of care
a) would prevent desirable activity in its entirety, to a certain level, or a mode b) would discourage people from completing functions in relation to the desirable activity |
the extent, level of detterancre from desirable activity
|
|
|
case where Ds act falling into common practice of ohers in a similar situation is considered strong evidence it not being negligent.
though still noted that neglect of Duty does not cease to be neglect of Duty for it being repeated often. which judges words are these. |
Bank of Montreal v Dominion. Lord Tomlin.
|
**** ** Montreal v Dom*****
|
|
|
case where departing from common practice does not necessarily imply negligence, it may be inferred, but it does not mean that it must be done so, unless proven otherwise.
|
Brown v Rolls-Royce '960
|
case where C contracted dermatitis and tried to claim damages from employers for failing to provide barrier cream to lessen the effects of being in constant contact with oil.
|
|
|
a case where accounting and audit standards are said to have vague rules, though they are themselves a strong evidence as to what is a proper standard that should be adopted
|
Lloyd cheynham v Littlejohn & Co.
|
the judges idea which I think is absolutely nuts! his name is that of an animal
|
|
|
case where governments code of practice were enough to prevent breach of Duty for an employer of averege knowledge on risks from occupational exposure to noise levels. though was not an excuse for employer with greater than average knowledge.
|
Baker v Quantum Clothing '2011
|
levels of knowledge on possible risks affecting the level of Duty of care to be execriced
|
|
|
case that introduced a test for professionals of s specific profession, that says one must not only exercise reasonable care, but also live up to the standard of profficiency expected from professionals at that level.
|
Whitehouse v Jordan '981
|
professionalism and going beyond mere care taking, to meeting the proficiency standard
|
|
|
case where it says that jeweller performing ear piercing must meet the competence that of a jeweller and not that of surgeon
|
Phillips v Whiteley
|
case to show one's competence won't be judged on higher standards than one's actual competence required in the occupation it performs
|
|
|
case where it says that a professional acting in accordance to the practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of people skilled in that profession protects one from negligence claims
|
Bolam v Friern Hospital
|
My landlord s. name without last letter and a word similar to friend v Hospital
|
|
|
Bolam test what matters does it apply to?
|
diagnosis; treatment + warning the patient of inherent risks & side effects of proposed treatment.
|
|
|
|
how is duty to warn the patient of possible treatment risks relies to negligence?
|
it is only a single aspect in negligence, not the base for it
|
|
|
|
case where doctor did not inform patient of less than one 1% risk of her operation resulting in spinal damage leading to paralysis. and where the doctor was not liable due to there being an authoritative body of an opinion supporting the choice of not disclosing such a factor.
|
sideway v bethlem royal hospital '985
|
medics are cunty ***** dicks
|
|
case where Kerr LJ said that there are always Gray areas as to opinion differences what a proper answer should be in the particular circumstances of any case.
|
Blyth v Bloomsbury HA '993
|
|
|
|
case to show that in modern law, medical paternalism no longer rules and defies the cases of Sideway and Blyth , saying that a patient has a prima facie right to be informed of a small risk of serious injury as a result of surgery.
|
Chester v Afshar '2004
|
Lord Steyn
|
|
|
case where it says that a body of opinion need not be substantial and that 11 specialists out of a total 1000 orthopaedic and neurosurgeons in the country is sufficient
|
Defreitas v O'Brown '995
|
|
|
|
cases to establish that Bolam test applies to all professionals not just that of a medical background . name one for solicitors and one for surveyors
|
McFarlane v Wilkinson '1997 - sol
Theodore Goddard v Fletcher-King - surveyors |
|
|
|
a case to show that where there is an obvious risk of dishonesty of a person involved in deal, should be guarded against. and common practice won't be an excuse. name a case which shows this principle and what is it about.
|
Edward Wong v Johnson Stokes '1984
solicitor liable for failing to 've cautious about sellers solicitors for him being aware of their dishonesty |
|
|
a case to show that if it can be demonstrated that the body of opinion relies on illogical grounds, the judge keeps the privildge to call the body off as unreasonable or irresponsible . which case and what's the judges name?
|
Bolitho v City & Hackney HA '1998
Lord Browne - Wilkinson |
|
|
a case to show that a treshold of liability in dangerous sports is high, due to incidents being inherent in the nature of sports. a case with horseracing. similar to that of Condon v Basi. which judge ?
|
Caldwell v Maguire
Tuckey LJ |
|
